*
Giovedì 3 Marzo, giorno in cui il consiglio dei ministri approvava il decreto legislativo (DL) sulle energie rinnovabili, veniva pubblicato sul Corriere della Sera un dossier a firma del sig. Sergio Rizzo , giornalista diventato famoso per essere stato co-autore di un libro sulla casta dei politici . Ho avuto quell'articolo sotto agli occhi perchè mi è stato sottoposto, non certo perchè io compri il Corriere o spenda tempo per navigare sui siti di questi noiosi quotidiani italiani.
Il saggio del giornalista inizia con un assaggio : "mentre il costo medio dell'energia in Italia si aggira sui 60-70 euro al megawattora, chi produce elettricità photovoltaics still pockets with up to 402 €. You may wonder: who pays? Obviously the people. "
wonder how Rizzo has calculated the average cost of energy: I am holding the latest bills and ENEL, whilst being in the lowest consumption bracket, therefore cheaper, I see higher numbers by almost a factor of two compared to those given by Rizzo. I have the exact figures for all of 2009: 1 megawatt hour cost me € 117 for one share of energy (net of various taxes and levies). Its average costs are therefore an impossibility. ... But we leave out was just a taste.
The key message entire essay is that the manufacturers of photovoltaic (PV) and are renewable pest-speculators who gain weight is borne by the users and the state. The journalist apparently was obedient to fill half a page of the newspaper in conjunction with the approval of the DL and, while not knowing the ABC of the issues involved, it is squeezed to pick up information and say its . And in tune with the Minister Romani .... just get to bottom of the article to understand.
It seems appropriate to establish certain fundamental truths here and I will refer in particular to the FV component of renewable energy because it is now being discussed more:
1) the incentives to producers so far dished out PV from many countries, particularly in Europe, served to depreciate over time the 'investment in production facilities resulting from high-tech equipment and who therefore have a certain cost.
2) All Member States that decide to use and distribute in the territory should subsidize a particular energy source and establish the incentives which will then be recovered by direct or indirect taxation.
Since energy policy is crucial for the existence of a country, states have always been of energy choices more or less shrewd and often are due to come to terms with the powerful corporations that are structured around the energy business. See, for example, the ups and downs in ' interaction between the U.S. government and oil companies began just a hundred years ago: If the Standard Oil (Exxon's predecessor) could not bribe Roosevelt, ExxonMobil with GW Bush instead had an intensity ratio friendship.
3) When the office. Rizzo gets up in the morning, shave, wash his private parts with hot water, eats breakfast, goes to the office or send your article to the editorial staff of the Courier, for all these things, he makes direct or indirect use of methane and oil arriving in Italy thanks to the precise energy choices made by governments in past decades. Those choices have had and have costs that are downloaded bills users. The same infrastructure, pipelines and oil pipelines, are not made by charities, but are paid by users.
4) Now, it so happens that the era of hydrocarbons (which began in Pennsylvania 152 years ago) has started its downward slide. The events that upset the world these days are compelling indicators of the need to find new ways. It is therefore manage the transition era, already begun, of solar energy. And that wind is a form of solar energy. Like it or not, there are no alternatives.
5) It 'obvious that as soon as you create a turnover and money, we saranno sempre dei truffatori pronti ad inserirsi nel business. Ma quando, nel 2004, la Shell fu scoperta a truffare azionisti e consumatori mediante stime subdolamente gonfiate delle sue risorse petrolifere , essa fu condannata a pagar penali per US$ 150 milioni alle commissioni di vigilanza sulle Borse USA e di Gran Bretagna. Non per questo però USA e Gran Bretagna smisero di usare il petrolio nè di finanziare attività petrolifere. Analogamente si devono colpire i furbetti e i mafiosi che speculano sugli incentivi alle fonti rinnovabili italiane ma non per questo si dovrà rinunciare a sostenere un settore produttivo fondamentale.
Io fui tra i primi ad installare 5 anni fa un piccolo impianto FV nell'ambito del primo Conto Energia (darò prossimamente alcuni dati e informazioni al riguardo) ma di certo non lo feci per guadagnarci. A tutt'oggi ho recuperato una frazione della spesa iniziale e, se solo dovessi monetizzare il tempo dedicato a gestire l'intera faccenda, l'investimento si rivelerebbe assurdo. Invece ritengo di aver fatto comunque una scelta giusta.
Ritengo anche che gli impianti solari, FV e termici, devano avere dimensioni medio-piccole e siano consistenti con un sistema elettrico fatto da una rete astuta di tanti produttori e consumatori che, innanzitutto, abbiano interiorizzato il principio dell'efficienza energetica . Non ha infatti senso continuare ad installare nuova potenza elettrica, sia essa rinnovabile o non, se non si eliminano gli sprechi sia in fase di produzione e distribuzione che in fase di consumo. Se il secchio è bucato è inutile continuare a versarvi acqua.
E qui vengo ad un altra questione maldestramente sollevata dal Rizzo: egli informa che negli ultimi quattro anni sono state presentate domande di impianti alternativi per 130 mila Megawatt, a fronte di una potenza elettrica installata, nel corso dell'ultimo secolo, di 105 mila Megawatt.
La frase è vaga e sconclusionata come tutto il saggio del nostro. I numeri bisogna saperli dare ed interpretare. Si deve sapere, il giornalista non sa, che 1 MegaWatt (MW) di potenza solare produces, in terms of energy, 5 or 6 times less than that which produces 1 MW of power from hydrocarbons. So if you have to really replace with solar power the 100 gigawatts (GW) of installed power well so far, to have the same energy, would be 500 to 600 gigawatts of new solar systems and not just 130 GW!
1GW = 1,000 MW
So what looked like a huge amount to Sergio good may be a small amount if all the power had to be replaced by conventional electric power source of solar energy (of course I am considering an extreme case that the power supply total should instead be formed by a mix of different sources). The
journalist has not studied, ergo he does not know that the energy that comes from the sun is so much but it is diluted and the dilution factor depends on the photochemical inverse square of the distance earth-sun. The issue here is all photovoltaic and that's why the incentives become necessary during the transition, however, exclude the possibility that the history ... Rizzo is able to grasp the meaning of these sentences.
In short, the complex issues should be addressed by those who have specific skills. The caste of politicians and caste idiots should address their daily mundane squabbles. We also understand why Corriere della Sera and the like continue to lose readers while some blogs continue a guadagnarne.
